No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

First of all thanks for the samples Tony! Sure it's not a scientific test, but it's a very interesting real world test!!From what I see the NEX combo seems to give better IQ than the Canon one (jpeg)..

Can you provide us with 2 RAW files from these cameras, so we can eliminate the in-camera editing parameter?

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

First of all thanks for the samples Tony! Sure it's not a scientific test, but it's a very interesting real world test!!From what I see the NEX combo seems to give better IQ than the Canon one (jpeg)..

Can you provide us with 2 RAW files from these cameras, so we can eliminate the in-camera editing parameter?

Again, thanks!

sorry, didn't take the raw format with Nex. The max image this forum allow to attach is 4 mb.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do!

BTW, something is seriously up with those photos. The Nex seems to have captured trees in the background that simply don't exist in the Canon shot. Unless your trying to tell me the Sony NEX is capable of generating content that isn't there, an that that is its strength, I find this "test" 100% bogus. All your doing is saying:

"Well, the NEX image looks better to me!"

Sorry, you can't objectively determine if either of those photos is "better", too many variables (pixel size, focal length, camera settings, etc. etc.), not the least of which is the fact that you manually focused, which adds a huge human element of non-deterministic subjectivity to the test right from the get-go. If you were using contrast-detection AF in live view, or had a proper test chart to help you gauge when the image was well and truly focused, that's a different thing...but this....

BO-GUS.

Calm down, this is just a simple test, comparing the combo/image not the camera itself, I think I did the best I can. 100% live view manual focus is more accurate than auto focus, what you see is what sensor captures. Focus are both on the tile above the house at center. Since Nex sensor is 1.5 crop and focal length is 28 vs. 24 =>(1.75) the 5D II shot took is half way closer, that's why perspective changed, some of the tree appeared/disappeared.

Maybe it's the in camera software (standard jpg style in both), to me the Nex image looks has better contrast and bit sharper even it is 1/3 overexposed than 5DII.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

You know, Canon is so bad that nobody could in good conscious sell it used to move to Nikon or Sony. What to do then? I will accept the great burden of taking your inferior Canon equipment off your hands at no cost to you. Simply ship your equipment to me along with a receipt for the shipping costs, and I will PayPal you the shipping. Then you will be free to move to Nikon/Sony, conscious clear that you did not charge someone for your inferior Canon products.

I know, I know...somebody will have paid the shipping costs, and your inferior, noisy, narrow DR Canon products aren't even worth that! But don't feel bad, I'm more than willing to make the sacrifice, humble humanitarian that I am

just read http://diglloyd.com/ comment on the subject of oversampling as a means to deliver superb image quality. both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.

I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.

When the **** did the "Canon crowd" ever say this? Canon was the first to FF, one of the first to >20 MP, and most Canon users were disappointed that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with the D800.

Quote

both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.

"Abysmal"? LOL! Have you ever even touched a camera? FYI, the Bayer mosaic has never, ever impacted IQ to the degree claimed. And I've seen plenty of the foolish claims. First it was film guys claiming Bayer could never match three layer color film in the same format (happened around 12 MP for 35mm). Then it was the Foveon guys who couldn't distinguish between overall resolution and color detail...and exaggerated even the color detail advantage. Now you're trying the same nonsense but attaching it to sensor resolution.

Quote

I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.

While I'm looking forward to >30 MP sensors, even I have to admit that they will make no real difference for images viewed on today's monitors or prints up to about 24, maybe 30".

You've just got to love the hyperbole in photographic equipment discussions...

Judging by the D800 discussion and pics I'm seeing by far the most limating factor for resolution with landscape work seems to be boarder sharpness. We might be along way off the max resolution limates of the center of lenses but even the very best wideangles seem to be struggling with both 36MP FF images and 24MP ASPC images.

Lens performance seems to me the most likely fact thats going to limate the max resolution of various sensor sizes, larger formats optics simpley won't have to work as hard as in the days of film.

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

IMHO, you are doing it wrong, because you are comparing the default JPG output, which is not for someone looking for the best IQ.My advice for a non-scientific test:1st. You have to shoot RAW and then process both images to get the best possible result.2nd. For FF vs APS-C, similar focal length and the same aperture will give you very different results. Try comparing 5D2 + something at 40mm f/8 vs NEX-5N + 28/2.8@5.6. You may find out that 5D2 + 24-105L at 40mm is just as good as Contax 28/2.8 on NEX-5N.

Ok, now that I'm on my computer instead of my phone, I did. The Sony image looks sharper.

Of course, if I oversharpened the 5DII image as the Sony in-camera settings seem to be doing, it would be sharper still, but it would probably have the purple jaggies just like you see in this crop of the Sony image...

Ok, now that I'm on my computer instead of my phone, I did. The Sony image looks sharper.

Of course, if I oversharpened the 5DII image as the Sony in-camera settings seem to be doing, it would be sharper still, but it would probably have the purple jaggies just like you see in this crop of the Sony image...

SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do!

BTW, something is seriously up with those photos. The Nex seems to have captured trees in the background that simply don't exist in the Canon shot. Unless your trying to tell me the Sony NEX is capable of generating content that isn't there, an that that is its strength, I find this "test" 100% bogus. All your doing is saying:

"Well, the NEX image looks better to me!"

Sorry, you can't objectively determine if either of those photos is "better", too many variables (pixel size, focal length, camera settings, etc. etc.), not the least of which is the fact that you manually focused, which adds a huge human element of non-deterministic subjectivity to the test right from the get-go. If you were using contrast-detection AF in live view, or had a proper test chart to help you gauge when the image was well and truly focused, that's a different thing...but this....

BO-GUS.

Calm down, this is just a simple test, comparing the combo/image not the camera itself, I think I did the best I can. 100% live view manual focus is more accurate than auto focus, what you see is what sensor captures. Focus are both on the tile above the house at center. Since Nex sensor is 1.5 crop and focal length is 28 vs. 24 =>(1.75) the 5D II shot took is half way closer, that's why perspective changed, some of the tree appeared/disappeared.

Maybe it's the in camera software (standard jpg style in both), to me the Nex image looks has better contrast and bit sharper even it is 1/3 overexposed than 5DII.

I just find it incredibly ironic, that, after my request that you NOT simply provide an unscientific "I think X looks better" analysis, that's exactly what you did. Blew my mind that you though posting two out of camera jpegs that have had radically different processing and were manually focused (although you did mention Live View with CDAF, which is, IMO, not "manually" focusing) was anywhere remotely close to an objective comparison of two cameras.

As Neuro stated, the Sony camera applies some judicious sharpening, and its very clear at 100% on a 30" screen that such is the case. Neither image looks particularly great, to be quite frank, and I think there are a number of better subjects that could assist in demonstrating the image quality of two cameras. Regardless of the subject chosen, however...using out of camera JPEG's is ridiculous, and not indicative of the kind of IQ we get for buying cameras that support RAW output.

So, sorry, but I really do find your comparison to be extremely lacking and highly subjective. Thus, bogus.